The Court confirmed that filing a trade mark covering goods or services for which there is no intention to use the mark may amount to bad faith under Section 3(6) of the UK Trade Marks Act 1994. Notably, bad faith in this context does not require dishonesty. It is sufficient if the application reflects a deliberate strategy to obtain trade mark rights beyond a legitimate commercial scope.

The Court recognised that the assessment of bad faith is fact-specific and must be made with reference to objective circumstances at the date of filing. The Court also provided a non-exhaustive list of factors relevant to assessing bad faith, including:

• The breadth of the specification in relation to the applicant’s business;
• Patterns of filing, such as repeated applications across many classes;
• Knowledge of third-party interests, which may indicate an attempt to block;
• The presence or absence of internal evidence of intent to use;
• The applicant’s explanation in response to challenge.

Where only certain goods or services are affected by bad faith, partial invalidation applies. The burden of proving bad faith remains with the party making the allegation, but an applicant must provide a plausible and objective explanation if suspicious circumstances arise.

In response, the UKIPO issued PAN 1/25 on 27 June 2025. Examiners are now required to scrutinise specifications that are "manifestly and self-evidently broad". This includes entire class headings or claims across all 45 classes. Where the specification appears to go beyond what is commercially justifiable, Examiners will raise a preliminary query. If not satisfactorily addressed, a formal objection under section 3(6) for bad faith may follow. The applicant will have two months to either:

• Justify the scope with evidence of commercial intent, or
• Amend the specification to reflect intended use.

• Avoid vague, open-ended claims—instead of "software", specify its nature or function.
• Keep documentation showing your commercial plans at the time of filing.
• Be prepared to justify your scope if challenged.
• Review pending and recent filings—particularly those with broad class claims.
• Consider phased filings as your business develops.

This development signals the end of speculative filings in the UK. Rights must now be tied to real-world commercial plans, not theoretical futures.

A note for South African trade mark applicants

South African law contains a similar provision: section 10(4 ) of the Trade Marks Act 194 of 1993 prohibits the registration of a trade mark where the applicant has no bona fide intention to use the mark in relation to the goods or services applied for. While our courts have yet to deal squarely with overly broad specifications in this context, the principle is firmly embedded in our case law.

Bad faith has been found in cases involving copying, insider knowledge, and misuse of prior relationships. Though South African jurisprudence has not yet mirrored the UK’s SkyKick reasoning, the Supreme Court’s analysis—and the UKIPO’s new practice—are likely to be increasingly persuasive.

Given this, South African applicants should consider aligning their filing strategies with this emerging international standard:

• Ensure every item in your specification matches a genuine intention to use;
• Avoid filing across entire classes unless commercially justified;
• Keep records that evidence your intention at the time of filing.

As comparative jurisprudence continues to influence local practice, overreach may soon invite greater scrutiny in South Africa as well.